Forums

Is juicing worth the risk? Topic

Since we never talk about baseball, here's more dumb **** to argue about.

Is juicing worth the risk? I think for some types of players, it is.

Consider a generic everyday, average ballplayer who makes $2M/year. He makes market value for his services, and there's no reason to believe that will increase. So, in the last year of his contract, he decides to juice. Furthermore, suppose his production does increase (a la Cabrera). Obviously, peds do not always mean increased performance, though it does seem to in many cases.

Anyway, he juices, plays better, and then signs a 3-yr $18M contract in the winter ($6M/yr). The next March, he fails a test, and is suspended the first 50 games for his new team.

So what's changed for the guy?

a) he has to serve a suspension
b) his name is 'smeared' (whatever that means) in the media
c) He turned a prospective 3-yr $6M deal into a 3-yr $18M deal, minus the paycut for the 50 game suspension.

Plausible? For most players, no. For some, hell yes. Given the *large* amounts of money involved, I see it as a pretty serious issue.

For that reason, I think teams signing free-agent contracts with a clause voiding the contract for a drug suspension will do more to discourage ped use than the current rules do. I think this will eventually become the norm. What do you think?

Well, of course it's worth the risk, if it wasn't, it would either be completely out of the game or exceedingly rare. I said as much when Melky Cabrera got caught last year - there was literally no reason for him not to try, he was going nowhere.

And I'm pretty sure voiding contracts for PEDs will either have to become the norm or it won't happen it all - I don't think teams can negotiate special terms for voiding contracts that go beyond what's in the uniform contract.

^ I agree. It seems like an obvious 'cover your ***' strategy for GMs. I feel like clean players would be fine with it. For example, some players already sign contracts with such weird **** as 'contract is void if you get hurt in a motorcycle accident,' etc. They might have to structure it with a clear protocol of steps that govern what happens between a suspension & the contract being voided (to cover for the risk of a false positive), but I think it will be written into more & more individual contracts as time goes on.

Posted by rsp777 on 8/1/2013 5:10:00 PM (view original):Why won't we see contracts that void if a player is caught using ped's under the league program? If I was a gm I'd ALREADY have it written into standard contracts.

I'm guessing that a "void" clause for PED use in the standard contract would need to be something that would need to be agreed to in the CBA.

The word is that the players themselves are open and willing to clean up the game, so if that's the case then this could be something that's negotiated into the next CBA. But I would doubt that the owners themselves could put this into a contract on their own, even on an individual case by case basis. The MLBPA could challenge that.

Posted by rsp777 on 8/1/2013 5:10:00 PM (view original):Why won't we see contracts that void if a player is caught using ped's under the league program? If I was a gm I'd ALREADY have it written into standard contracts.

I'm guessing that a "void" clause for PED use in the standard contract would need to be something that would need to be agreed to in the CBA.

The word is that the players themselves are open and willing to clean up the game, so if that's the case then this could be something that's negotiated into the next CBA. But I would doubt that the owners themselves could put this into a contract on their own, even on an individual case by case basis. The MLBPA could challenge that.

This. The basic contract language is collectively bargained.

I doubt the union would go for it. The players want to clean up the game but making sure there are checks on the power of the owners is just as important.

Posted by inkdskn on 8/1/2013 5:18:00 PM (view original):^ I agree. It seems like an obvious 'cover your ***' strategy for GMs. I feel like clean players would be fine with it. For example, some players already sign contracts with such weird **** as 'contract is void if you get hurt in a motorcycle accident,' etc. They might have to structure it with a clear protocol of steps that govern what happens between a suspension & the contract being voided (to cover for the risk of a false positive), but I think it will be written into more & more individual contracts as time goes on.

It's not SOME players that sign that kind of clause - it's ALL players (it's not specifically motorcycle accidents, just a general catch all for that sort of stuff) because that clause is in the uniform contract that is agreed to in the CBA.

Don't you think if they could do it GMs already would doing it? Think anyone would have signed Melky Cabrera to a multi-year deal without an added clause if it was an option?

Maybe not. Teams benefit from a jacked up player. If Team A insists on a PED clause and Team B doesn't, a guy "experimenting" will sign with Team B even if the offers aren't the same. GMs need to win games too.

I don't know all the rules and ****, but it's clear why NYY can't really do anything over Gayrod's ped stuff: there are already rules governing a ped-use scenario, and the rules state that the club can't do anything in addition to the protocol already established. Since there is no explicit ped-stuff in his contract, they must play by the rules established by the JDA.

But do the (general) contract stipulations explicitly ban an additional clause in the contract that would void it for something like peds? I dunno. If it doesn't, I expect to see a clause to that effect start appearing in contracts. If it is banned, I expect it to be revisited the next time they do their collective bargaining crap (or whatever it's called).

Alcheez, you asked whether they would already be doing it if they could. While common sense says yes, they may not have really seen it as all that big of a deal at the time. I dunno.

The whole thing just seems dumb to me, as Bud can advertise all he wants about strict anti-doping rules, but the reality (imo) is that for many players, using peds is a calculated risk worth taking, since it can theoretically yield millions of dollars. Owners, in general, seem to have no hesitation signing 'former' users, either. Throw in non-voidable contracts (if what you guys say is true, contracts for which it is explicitly forbidden to write in a void clause for peds in the actual contract), and it seems like there's a helluva lot of incentive for guys to dope. Upside: Possibly gaining millions of bucks that are otherwise unavailable. Downside: Not work for a coupla months if you get busted.